The degradation of the city of Antioch was due to the city's own planning. I am forever thankful for leaving that cesspit after unwilling moving there in the late 2000s. Antioch could be a great small city, with its access on the Delta, rich history, and availability of recreational acreage. Unfortunately its denial of commercial growth if favor of low income housing in the 1990s, its rapid over development of residential properties in despite of low demand, and its horrible mistake of allowing out of district students to attend its new high school because its desire for state student funds, left it primed for a complete societal collapse. The glut of housing attracted investors looking to turn quick profits, only to end up renting to low income and section 8 inner city derelicts fleeing Oakland and Richmond in favor of a larger house than they could afford in the large cities. The BARTing in of problem students creating a massive crime wave beyond what the local PD could handle. I remember when traffic enforcement was halted in order to allow more officers to deal with rampant crime and violence. Our vehicles were broken into multiple times. Packages were regularly stolen from our porch. I've had to chase off miscreants on multiple occasions from our back yard. It got to the point where I had to answer my door with with my handgun behind my back because of forceful entries in my neighborhood.

I feel sorry for you ScottsBad. My best advise would be to leave Antioch if you can. It is no place to raise a family. As for CCWs, good luck. You are still in the anti-gun Bay Area. I don't blame liberals for the collapse of Antioch. I blame idiots in both local and county politics. With San Ramon, Alamo, and Walnut Creek pushing all the section 8 vouchers into Antioch, and the Antioch council accepting bribes from crooks like Seeno, there is no hope for Antioch to ever recover.

I appreciate that, I don't live in Antioch, but my EX does, my son went to High School there in the late 90's, fooled by the lure of a brand new High School there. I had the means at the time to send him to DeLa Salle.

Within months he got the **** beat out of him by people he thought were his friends and he was no wimp.

Over the years I heard the stories of ever increasing crime and schools that were out of control. Over time the crime went from a lot of small thefts, to home invasion, and now gang related murder is moving in.

Then the housing boom crashed resulting in many foreclosures and cheap rentals as you described.

It may become the suburb version of Oakland.

I live in the San Ramon Valley, but I am fearful for all those families stuck in Antioch who are now in danger and have no way of protecting themselves outside of their homes.

It might help if someone can gather the statistics on crimes committed in total, arrests for the same time period, convictionsetc and then seperate out violent crimes and crimes where stolen guns and legal guns were used to embarrass the sheriff and police chiefs. My guess is that you are going to find a high number of crimes, low arrest rate, low conviction rate overall with an increasing rise in violent crimes percentage wise. Also a rise in stolen illegal guns being used in violent and minimal if any legally registered guns being used in crimes by their owners. But law enforcement already knows this don't they and that is why these stats are not going to be easy to come by?

Antioch PD has exactly 1 civilian LTC out (2011). Sheriff has a vast 26 ... Could contact the city, if you like.

Point is, CoCoCo is a very difficult location for civilian LTC.

Tell me about it !

However the existence of the 1 LTC says that Antioch hasn't declared G and as such it may be worth putting the pressure on the Chief and City Council. I suspect that the Sheriff won't change his stance, where given the fuss in Antioch, the Chief/Council might. Unfortunately it wont matter for me as I'm not an Antioch resident.

Hello All,
I saw the same news segment and as an avid gun owner and unfortunately a resident of Antioch, I am VERY interested if there is a group being put together to push for CCW.
I have never tried as I figured it was a completely useless hope in California, but with the response times to 911 calls (one instance where we called when someone was shot in front of our home) be AWFUL, one would hope that they would allow respectful, responsible, hard working folks to protect themselves from these wanna be thugs who are terrorizing the city. Home invasion thefts are at an all time high here, and I will tell ya, if they pick this house, I got something waiting for them!!!
Please, anyone with information on CCW groups, contact me
Peace,
Jimmy

I'm not sure how you fixed this for me. Are you saying that we need to forget about the Police being a significant deterrence? Or are you saying that we should be able to defend ourselves regardless of whether or not there is a Police force.

In any case, the point of the News Cast was that the rise in crime was principally caused by the lack of an adequate Police deterrent. I do not subscribe to this notion. I simply posed the question as implied by the news.

I believe we should have CCW regardless of the perceived safety of the individual community or state.

Hello All,
I saw the same news segment and as an avid gun owner and unfortunately a resident of Antioch, I am VERY interested if there is a group being put together to push for CCW.
I have never tried as I figured it was a completely useless hope in California, but with the response times to 911 calls (one instance where we called when someone was shot in front of our home) be AWFUL, one would hope that they would allow respectful, responsible, hard working folks to protect themselves from these wanna be thugs who are terrorizing the city. Home invasion thefts are at an all time high here, and I will tell ya, if they pick this house, I got something waiting for them!!!
Please, anyone with information on CCW groups, contact me
Peace,
Jimmy

Jimmy,
I guess nobody is going to say this, but Welcome to CalGuns!

I would first try to contact the fellow who tried to start the petition in Antioch, Jonathan Hernandez.

But you could go further. You could try to organize a group on CalGuns.

Actually assembling a group is not easy, but you could make a posting in the CCW or second amendment forum areas. Ask people to send you an email if they are interested. Make sure you set up a new email address and don't use the one you use every day.

This is very important, IGNORE THE NAYSAYERS!

There are quite a few liberals that troll CalGuns forums. They try to deflect organizing activities, or obfuscate issues in order to try to make these efforts look radical or stupid. Believe me they exist, they pretend to be gun people, or they own a gun but are liberal. For some of these trolls it is part of a disinformation campaign, for others, it is a game.

Hello everybody. I have lived in Antioch for 35 years and have seen this city drop into ****holeizm. If I don't hear gunshots every night I'm really shocked!!!
I had someone try to get into my front window a while back but luckily I put a rod in the tracks so the couldn't open it. And if they did I had my best friend glock 23 waiting. If there is any ccw petition for Antioch/Contra Costa I would definitely help in any way.

By law, Sheriffs and city Police Chiefs (in cities that issue) MAY issue a License To Carry (LTC); there are no statewide objective requirements for 'good cause', and an issuing agency may reject any applicant for any reason or no reason.

At Calguns, of course, we think this is a Bad Thing.

Principally it is Sheriffs who issue in California. Sheriffs are elected, and legally respond to nobody but their electors and to court orders. The Calguns Foundation is busy suing several Sheriffs in Federal Court; there has been one limited success, where Sacramento County and Yolo County were sued, and Sacramento agreed to change its policy - so it was dropped from the suit. Yolo is still being sued.

Short of a Federal Court applying a cluebat upside the head, some sheriffs and police chiefs will continue their restrictive issuance policy. The clue will be a Supreme Court opinion specifying that 'bear' is a Constitutional right.

Please do continue to apply, write your city chief or county sheriff, and talk to your county supervisors and city council members; it's important that they know there is a demand for the licenses, so they cannot say they have never heard of any requests.

Short of a Federal Court applying a cluebat upside the head, some sheriffs and police chiefs will continue their restrictive issuance policy. The clue will be a Supreme Court opinion specifying that 'bear' is a Constitutional right.

No, it will be a Supreme Court opinion upholding the right to carry in public in a lawsuit directly against them. Nothing less will be heeded by these sheriffs. They will continue as they have even in the face of a direct Supreme Court ruling as long as the ruling isn't directly against them. See Chicago.

Winning Richards is just the beginning of the process of securing the right to carry in public here in California. The entire process will take many, many years, and may not be possible at all if a change of the guard occurs at the Supreme Court before we can bring the direct case I speak of above to the Supreme Court. The time required is such that such a change of guard is very possible.

The degradation of the city of Antioch was due to the city's own planning. I am forever thankful for leaving that cesspit after unwilling moving there in the late 2000s. Antioch could be a great small city, with its access on the Delta, rich history, and availability of recreational acreage. Unfortunately its denial of commercial growth if favor of low income housing in the 1990s, its rapid over development of residential properties in despite of low demand, and its horrible mistake of allowing out of district students to attend its new high school because its desire for state student funds, left it primed for a complete societal collapse. The glut of housing attracted investors looking to turn quick profits, only to end up renting to low income and section 8 inner city derelicts fleeing Oakland and Richmond in favor of a larger house than they could afford in the large cities. The BARTing in of problem students creating a massive crime wave beyond what the local PD could handle. I remember when traffic enforcement was halted in order to allow more officers to deal with rampant crime and violence. Our vehicles were broken into multiple times. Packages were regularly stolen from our porch. I've had to chase off miscreants on multiple occasions from our back yard. It got to the point where I had to answer my door with with my handgun behind my back because of forceful entries in my neighborhood.

I feel sorry for you ScottsBad. My best advise would be to leave Antioch if you can. It is no place to raise a family. As for CCWs, good luck. You are still in the anti-gun Bay Area. I don't blame liberals for the collapse of Antioch. I blame idiots in both local and county politics. With San Ramon, Alamo, and Walnut Creek pushing all the section 8 vouchers into Antioch, and the Antioch council accepting bribes from crooks like Seeno, there is no hope for Antioch to ever recover.

I grew up in Antioch and graduated high school there too. You pretty much nailed it on the head joe_gman. I have since moved out, but my parents and inlaws still live there. It's pretty sad really, Antioch could be a nice place

No, it will be a Supreme Court opinion upholding the right to carry in public in a lawsuit directly against them. Nothing less will be heeded by these sheriffs. They will continue as they have even in the face of a direct Supreme Court ruling as long as the ruling isn't directly against them. See Chicago.

I think that's a subset - but the subset would include Los Angeles, San Francisco and probably Santa Clara, so it would cover around 1/3 of the population of the state.

I do not dismiss the power of fighting reality with Other People's Money.

I do think some of the returns from winning one or more of the cases ought to be spent on battlespace preparation in those large counties, such as 'Your city/county is cutting cops and garbage collectors and libraries, but they want to spend millions in court to lose, just like [losing county]. Demand that your supervisors not waste money!'

__________________The Legislature is in recess. We're immune from most further mischief until the next session begins, late December 2017.

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

Yep, because you talk directly with soooooo may sheriffs and counties counsel...

I can understand some level of cynicism but in toto? Silly.

-Brandon

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcbrown

No, it will be a Supreme Court opinion upholding the right to carry in public in a lawsuit directly against them. Nothing less will be heeded by these sheriffs. They will continue as they have even in the face of a direct Supreme Court ruling as long as the ruling isn't directly against them. See Chicago.

Winning Richards is just the beginning of the process of securing the right to carry in public here in California. The entire process will take many, many years, and may not be possible at all if a change of the guard occurs at the Supreme Court before we can bring the direct case I speak of above to the Supreme Court. The time required is such that such a change of guard is very possible.

__________________Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.

I do think some of the returns from winning one or more of the cases ought to be spent on battlespace preparation in those large counties, such as 'Your city/county is cutting cops and garbage collectors and libraries, but they want to spend millions in court to lose, just like [losing county]. Demand that your supervisors not waste money!'

Unfortunately, a waste of money in California given the politics. We're better off just suing them.

-Brandon

__________________Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.

Yep, because you talk directly with soooooo may sheriffs and counties counsel...

I can understand some level of cynicism but in toto? Silly.

“Scratch any cynic and you will find a disappointed idealist.”

Expect to see the majority of us gun owners to remain cynics in toto for quite some time.

If we saw more sheriffs openly and unilaterally defying local politicians over gun policy (instead of tripping over themselves to help council members etc. push for more gun regulation, or providing media with ridiculously inaccurate firearm descriptions when being asked about a crime), you can bet we'd change our tune.

You did hint that there was some interesting action that was likely to happen on the former, and I await that eagerly. However, that does nothing to diminish my skepticism because I expect that case will have to go to the Supreme Court before we get any relief there. And I expect the same will prove true of Lu v Baca.

May I remind you that even the victory we won in Sacramento is, as of a number of months ago, a rather hollow one due to the sheer amount of time it takes for anyone to get an LTC from them? And you can't claim that it's not their own doing -- you know it is. I will, however, be the first one to admit that it is an improvement over what was there previously. It will take further work to straighten that out (and Sacramento could easily wind up being a perfect target for part of our strategy. ).

The victory we seek will take a very long time. But time is not on our side anymore, and that is why I am as deeply skeptical (while remaining hopeful at the same time) as I am.

Quote:

I can understand some level of cynicism but in toto? Silly.

My skepticism is limited primarily to the anti-gun strongholds. My statements were not meant to refer to more "pliable" counties such as Sacramento, though even those are still resisting.

There is a very large chance that we will lose the Supreme Court before we can position our pieces for a checkmate. This is chess, not checkers, but with one crucial difference: we're on a clock, and the timing of our moves is not under our full control.

What do you think will happen if Scocca v Smith winds up hitting the Supreme Court after, and not before, we lose the Heller majority? What do you think will happen, in the event of a loss of the Heller majority, with the followup lawsuits that we will inevitably have to file in order to combat the "creative" ways counties such as Santa Clara will come up with to deny us the right to carry in public? The loss of the Supreme Court will renew the vigor with which such counties will resist, because they will know that if we have to take them to court, we will lose at the top.

So if we lose the Heller majority before the right to carry in public is fully secured -- before counties such as Los Angeles and Santa Clara are out of ammunition -- then we lose, period. We are in grave danger. This is why we must fight that much harder and that much faster.

The biggest problem by far is that we could win everything outside of California, but that is meaningless for Californians unless we win everything in California as well. That's because laws, regulations, and enforcement all remain in place until either explicitly and successfully challenged in court or voluntarily withdrawn, and the latter will not happen in the anti-gun strongholds. Even that wouldn't be a problem were it not for the near certainty that the Supreme Court will continue to be, in effect, the court of first resort for cases brought in California even in the face of strong Supreme Court jurisprudence. The Supreme Court will continue to "have to say so more plainly", and it will not put the hammer down to stop that.

A subset and a predictable one. You're forgetting that there are 58 sheriffs and 58 counties counsel with 58 boards of supervisors.

Quote:

You did hint that there was some interesting action that was likely to happen on the former, and I await that eagerly. However, that does nothing to diminish my skepticism because I expect that case will have to go to the Supreme Court before we get any relief there.

Scocca will not see past CA9.

Quote:

And I expect the same will prove true of Lu v Baca.

And your lack of subject matter knowledge is failing you here.

Quote:

May I remind you that even the victory we won in Sacramento is, as of a number of months ago, a rather hollow one due to the sheer amount of time it takes for anyone to get an LTC from them?

While I'm as frustrated as anyone over the backlog, that is a good problem to have and an easier one to fix than one rooted in outright hostility.

Quote:

And you can't claim that it's not their own doing -- you know it is.

Whose doing - the County? Yes. The Sheriff's Office? Perhaps in part, but perhaps not entirely.

Quote:

I will, however, be the first one to admit that it is an improvement over what was there previously. It will take further work to straighten that out (and Sacramento could easily wind up being a perfect target for part of our strategy. ).

Maybe it will. It does present nicely, but so do a few others. Maybe they all will be.

Quote:

The victory we seek will take a very long time.

Our fight will never be over, but the core issues will be decided within the next ~10 years.

Quote:

But time is not on our side anymore, and that is why I am as deeply skeptical (while remaining hopeful at the same time) as I am.

I'm not happy about the election, either, but we do have a pretty full pipeline of cases that will hit the Heller 5 unless something happens to one of them.

Quote:

My skepticism is limited primarily to the anti-gun strongholds. My statements were not meant to refer to more "pliable" counties such as Sacramento, though even those are still resisting.

Thank you for finally acknowledging that most CA counties will not require the U.S. Supreme Court to order them before taking some action.

Quote:

There is a very large chance that we will lose the Supreme Court before we can position our pieces for a checkmate. This is chess, not checkers, but with one crucial difference: we're on a clock, and the timing of our moves is not under our full control.

There is no checkmate, ever. It's a game that never really ends, but the moves get smaller.

Quote:

What do you think will happen if Scocca v Smith winds up hitting the Supreme Court after, and not before, we lose the Heller majority?

See my previous comment on Scocca.

Quote:

What do you think will happen, in the event of a loss of the Heller majority, with the followup lawsuits that we will inevitably have to file in order to combat the "creative" ways counties such as Santa Clara will come up with to deny us the right to carry in public?

Who said Santa Clara was creative? They most definitely are not. In fact, it's pretty shockingly milquetoast on their side.

Quote:

The loss of the Supreme Court will renew the vigor with which such counties will resist, because they will know that if we have to take them to court, we will lose at the top.

Please name all of the counties. I want you to make actual predictions rather than just stand on the streetcorner screaming about the end of the world and the urgency of our salvation. Name the day and the hour or please admit your posts are really about being pessimistic for the sake of being pessimistic.

Quote:

So if we lose the Heller majority before the right to carry in public is fully secured -- before counties such as Los Angeles and Santa Clara are out of ammunition -- then we lose, period.

:sigh:

Quote:

We are in grave danger. This is why we must fight that much harder and that much faster.

I don't disagree with fighting smarter, harder, faster ever.

Quote:

The biggest problem by far is that we could win everything outside of California, but that is meaningless for Californians unless we win everything in California as well. That's because laws, regulations, and enforcement all remain in place until either explicitly and successfully challenged in court or voluntarily withdrawn, and the latter will not happen in the anti-gun strongholds. Even that wouldn't be a problem were it not for the near certainty that the Supreme Court will continue to be, in effect, the court of first resort for cases brought in California even in the face of strong Supreme Court jurisprudence. The Supreme Court will continue to "have to say so more plainly", and it will not put the hammer down to stop that.

Well, if that's true then you may as well stop donating and volunteering. Because if you are right, your donations and volunteerism is really an irrational exercise.

-Brandon

__________________Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.

A subset and a predictable one. You're forgetting that there are 58 sheriffs and 58 counties counsel with 58 boards of supervisors.

Yes, indeed. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people in the state live under a very small subset of those, and that subset happens to be the subset that is the wealthiest and the most resistive.

Quote:

Scocca will not see past CA9.

Oh, good. A testable prediction. I predict it will have to go past CA9, either because the 9th gives us a direct loss or because the "win" they give us contains a huge poison pill. Remember Nordyke III.

Quote:

And your lack of subject matter knowledge is failing you here.

What about it is lacking in this instance? The county court ruled against us. On what basis do you believe the California supreme court won't uphold the county court's decision? My prediction is based on the observation that when it comes to how courts treat it, guns are different from most issues. They are more polarizing, and courts are more likely to rule on the basis of emotion than logic (and to arrive at a conclusion first and then go fishing for justification after the fact). This is Civil Rights Part 2, but with a right that the judiciary views as being far more dangerous than any other right we have. The courts hate this right far more than they hated blacks back during the civil rights movement.

Quote:

While I'm as frustrated as anyone over the backlog, that is a good problem to have and an easier one to fix than one rooted in outright hostility.

Oh, most certainly. And yet, the problem is there nonetheless. Additionally, is it really just a backlog issue? Or is the backlog continuously growing?

Quote:

Whose doing - the County? Yes. The Sheriff's Office? Perhaps in part, but perhaps not entirely.

If the Sheriff wanted to process applications faster, he'd allocate the appropriate resources or otherwise streamline the process. It's not like there aren't many issuing authorities throughout the country that have done precisely that. If it's not the Sheriff's doing, then it's only because he's been given orders to delay (and thus, effectively, deny) the right by whomever he answers to in the county.

Quote:

Our fight will never be over, but the core issues will be decided within the next ~10 years.

I agree. But the Heller majority will not be able to hold out for another 10 years.

Quote:

I'm not happy about the election, either, but we do have a pretty full pipeline of cases that will hit the Heller 5 unless something happens to one of them.

The problem is that, as I said elsewhere, it's not enough to merely win at the Supreme Court -- we have to keep them from reversing themselves later on. See my definition of "checkmate" below for why this is a necessity. The only way that can possibly happen is for the Heller majority to remain on the court until a non-Democrat is elected President. That means a minimum of 4 years. With a (roughly) 75% chance of one of them retiring or passing away before 2015 (based on historical age data on Supreme Court retirements), the chance that all of them will remain on the bench for another 10 years is nearly zero.

Quote:

Thank you for finally acknowledging that most CA counties will not require the U.S. Supreme Court to order them before taking some action.

You're welcome.

Quote:

There is no checkmate, ever. It's a game that never really ends, but the moves get smaller.

You misunderstand what I mean. What I mean by "checkmate" is that we secure the right such that the fights that ensue subsequently are ones that a typical lawyer can handle and win at the district court level. For that to be the case, the Supreme Court must take decisive and unmistakable action to make it clear that they are not the effective "court of first resort" for this issue, that there are real consequences to the lower courts if they attempt to pull a "the Supreme Court must say so more plainly" on them, and the Supreme Court must maintain that stance long enough to make it stick.

Quote:

Who said Santa Clara was creative? They most definitely are not. In fact, it's pretty shockingly milquetoast on their side.

For now, yes. Why should they be creative when they don't have to be? They don't have to be creative right now. A win in Richards changes all that.

Seriously, you appear to be making the potential mistake of underestimating the opposition here. That is a very bad thing to do, no?

Quote:

Please name all of the counties. I want you to make actual predictions rather than just stand on the streetcorner screaming about the end of the world and the urgency of our salvation. Name the day and the hour or please admit your posts are really about being pessimistic for the sake of being pessimistic.

I predict we will lose at least one of the Heller majority within 3 years of this very day, and I have $500 for CGF riding on it (for if I'm right, then CGF is going to need it! ).

As for the counties, those are:

Santa Clara

Los Angeles

San Francisco

Orange

I actually think there's a reasonable chance that San Mateo will just roll over upon a win in Richards. I could see that county going either way. But the 4 counties I listed above will resist to their dying breath.

Furthermore, I fully expect those counties to get significant help in their efforts from the California legislature, which is now a Democrat supermajority. I will not state the means by which the legislature can help on an open channel, but those ways are considerable.

Quote:

Well, if that's true then you may as well stop donating and volunteering. Because if you are right, your donations and volunteerism is really an irrational exercise.

Irrational or not, this is a fight that must be fought to the bitter end. How many times have I said that before? I meant it then, and I mean it now. This is a fight for the very essence of liberty. We lose this, and we lose everything.

Do not confuse my skepticism with my belief in the necessity of the fight, even in the darkest of circumstances. They are entirely different things altogether.

Ok, so just to be clear, every single one of those counties will be litigated up to SCOTUS?

Yes. Any other outcome would require SCOTUS to somehow keep the lower courts from continually making them "say so more plainly". I just don't see that happening.

See NAACP v Alabama for why I think that.

Osterweil v Bartlett is an excellent example of defiance of the Supreme Court by state and local governments. If they can do that for keep and bear in the home, they most certainly can, and will, for keep and bear in public. If that one winds up having to go to the Supreme Court due to the lower courts ruling against us, then it will bolster my case that the lower courts will simply continually make SCOTUS the effective "court of first resort". When you think about it, it makes sense that the lower courts would do that. By establishing a sort of precedent that any 2nd Amendment litigation has to go to SCOTUS for a ruling, they ensure that a loss of the Heller majority will have the most immediate effect, while also maximizing the chance of us losing -- SCOTUS can't overturn them all, according to a saying widely credited to 9th Circuit judge Reinhardt, and not all plaintiffs have sufficient resources to take their case all the way to the Supreme Court.

EDIT: And note that the district court already ruled against us in Osterweil, so the courts are well on their way towards proving my thesis here.

Quote:

Roll over and not do *anything* to frustrate access/exercise? Heh. Now you're not being cynical enough.

Well, okay, if you insist on adding San Mateo to the list, then feel free. Twist my arm, why don't you?

Gene claims here that SCOTUS will take "personal jurisdiction" in the event the lower courts behave as I claim they will. I'm deeply skeptical of that. SCOTUS has never, to my knowledge, done that, even during the civil rights movement (there, the U.S. Marshals got involved at the request of the Attorney General, and not, it seems, the Supreme Court). At most, they ruled on the merits of the cases before them in the event the lower courts kept ignoring their GVRs, but I'm presuming here that they will rule on the merits and the lower courts will ignore the resulting precedent. Judicial rebellion of that scale has never happened before, but I believe it will happen here, precisely because of the nature of the right involved.

During the civil rights movement, the executive branch supported, rather than opposing, the Supreme Court's decisions. That is most assuredly not going to happen here until we get a non-Democrat President, which won't happen for a minimum of 4 years from now. The U.S. Marshals will do the bidding of the Supreme Court if the Court tells them to intervene, but we will not get any support from the President or the Attorney General or anyone they command. Aside from the Supreme Court and those they directly command, we're on our own.

This article discusses the issue of the lower courts ignoring the Supreme Court. It's lacking citations, but shows that lower courts can and do ignore the Supreme Court when they really want to, and that doing so yields no consequences to them whatsoever.